Maintained by Robin Tecon, microbiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich. This blog is about bacteria (and other microbes) and the scientists who study them.

Pages

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Two years
ago, a controversy emerged about the research on influenza virus H5N1, and the
potential risk associated with it. This controversy followed the publication of
two research articles in Science and Nature, and I wrote about it in January
2012 in this blog post. Briefly, scientists have used so-called “gain-of-functions”
experiments, in which strains of influenza viruses are selected for new traits
such as higher transmissibility between ferrets (the preferred animal model in these studies). The objections that were raised by some critics
of this research were of two kinds: first, the information available in these
papers could be used by terrorists in order to produce bioweapons; second,
modified influenza viruses could escape the lab by accident and create a
pandemic. The first objection led to a very rare decision in scientific
publishing, namely the redaction of the articles to remove potentially
sensitive data. The important public concern also led the authors of these
studies to promulgate a moratorium on this type of work. After this temporary
stop, the experiments started again with additional biosafety measures.

The debate,
however, is far from over. The reason for this? Well, the recent publications
of several studies dealing with influenza virus, most notably a paper by Y.
Kawaoka (the author of the 2012 Nature publication) on avian influenza viruses
related to the 1918 “Spanish flu” virus. This research triggered a heated
response from several scientists, which was loudly echoed in the mainstream
press (see for instance in the Guardian and in the Independent). In that
particular case, it seems that the scientific community is truly divided on
the matter. An example of this dissent was the publication of a statement of
concern by a group of scientists known as the Cambridge Working Group,
which in essence asked for a better assessment of the risks of virus
research via the organization of a conference that would deal with all present
issues. Such a meeting could resemble the famous Asilomar conference of 1975,
where the risks associated with recombinant DNA were debated. Other
virologists, however, have fought back these reactions of distrust and have
created another group, Scientists for Science, which aims at promoting the
benefits of this research, and highlight the fact that serious safety regulations are already in place for virus research.

Sunday, August 03, 2014

‘Microbe Hunters’, as I have often been told, is a classic reading
in microbiology—one of those books that can inspire the beginning of a career.
In this book, written in 1926, American microbiologist and author Paul de Kruif proposes to acquaint us with the great pioneers of microbiology, from Leeuwenhoek
to Ehrlich, via Pasteur, Koch, Roux and several more.

I gave it a
try, and I must confess that at first I was a bit taken aback by the quite
unusual style of the author: extremely enthusiastic, overly lyric, made to
immerge us in the life of the protagonists with a plethora of details that may
or may not be true.I can’t remember
reading anything quite approaching the surprising and unusual tone of Microbe Hunters. Here’s an example describing
Spallanzani’s early experiments (p. 34):

“What’s
this?” [Spallanzani] cried. Here and there in the gray field of his lens he
made out an animalcule playing and sporting about—these weren’t large microbes,
like some he had seen—but they were living little animals just the same.

“Why, they
look like little fishes, tiny as ants,” he muttered—and then something dawned
on him— “These flasks were sealed- nothing could get into them from the
outside, yet here are little beings that have stood a heat of boiling water for
several minutes!”

[…] It was
a great day for Spallanzani, and though he did not know it, a great day for the
world.

But as I
was reading further I grew accustomed to this prose, and, to my own surprise, I
started to enjoy it! It is indeed difficult not to share de Kruif’s enthusiasm
for these great men of the past and, even though I would take the author’s
factual accuracy with more than a grain of salt, the book really makes you want
to learn more about the personal life of these pioneers.